One angle in my recent profile
of Tim Geithner concerned his relationship with Larry Summers, his former
mentor and the director of the National Economic Council. I contend that
Geithner, not Summers, has emerged as Obama's key adviser on financial
matters, and that Summers isn't happy about it. (Not everybody was
convinced.) Since my piece appeared, the buzz that Summers is looking to
leave--or is being pushed out--has picked up. Earlier today, my
colleague Marc Ambinder wrote about this, defending Summers against
his critics while leaving open the possibility that he may, indeed,
leave. My own view is a bit less sanguine. I think Summers is going to leave sooner rather than later, possibly
before the mid-term elections, and if not then, soon afterward.

Why? Because Summers is frustrated by his role, and his
colleagues are clearly frustrated with him. Alexis Simendinger had a
devastating
item in
last week's National Journal suggesting that Summers's
"legendary self-regard" and "ego the size of the national debt" had
gotten out of control. Some of Summers's frustration no doubt stems from
his wanting
to be Treasury secretary. When that plum went to Geithner, Summers cast
his eye on the Fed chairmanship and agreed to bide his time until Ben
Bernanke's term ended at the NEC--a staff position well below his old
job as Clinton's Treasury secretary. Most administration officials
tactfully avoid pointing this out, because Summers has a fragile ego.
But that's why Joe Biden is so great. "How many former Secretaries of
the Treasury would come in not as Secretary of the Treasury?" Biden
blurted
out to the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza last fall.

But Summers
didn't get the Fed job either. Apparently that didn't sit
well. Administration insiders told Simendinger that Summers demanded a
series of perks as compensation, including cabinet status, golf dates
with the president, and a personal car and driver. In the "No Drama"
Obama administration, such behavior stands out. And it isn't the
first time Summers has been the target of leaks. Last June, only a few
months into the administration, Jackie Calmes of the New York Times ran a
Summers-focused piece on "tensions" in the economic team. A little
later, Al Hunt wrote
a column
suggesting Obama was frustrated with Summers's poor coordination of the
economic team. I heard the same thing from several sources, one of whom
groused about the time spent "cleaning up Larry's messes."

Summers
always seemed a bad fit for NEC director because the job entails
dispassionately presenting the president with the counsel of his
competing economic advisers. Summers doesn't do "dispassionate" and he
didn't want to limit himself to fielding others' advice--he had plenty
of his own to offer. In other words, he was supposed to be
the referee, but he also wanted to play power forward. This rankled
other members of the economic team, including Austan Goolsbee, Christina
Romer, and Peter Orszag, enough that they're widely presumed to be the
sources of many of the leaks. Summers's tendency toward bureaucratic
infighting
was another problem. As Jonathan Alter lays out in his forthcoming book,
"The Promise," Summers maneuvered to sideline people like Paul
Volcker,
Joe Stiglitz, and even Orszag, behavior more characteristic
of the Clinton administration than the Obama administration. Alter also
reveals that Obama's nickname for Summers is "Dr. Kevorkian," which does
not
imply paternal fondness.

But what really makes me believe that
Summers won't stick around is that all this Machiavellian intrigue has
failed to win him what he wanted most: power. Summers
gets plenty of presidential face time, but he's not the nexus of White
House activity that everyone expected him to be, and that doesn't sit
well according to the Summers associates I spoke with. In my Atlantic
piece, I go into considerable detail about how Geithner, and
not Summers, came to be the key person on financial matters. But it
wasn't just finance. Energy and health care care were
also routed elsewhere, to Carol Browner and Nancy Ann DeParle. The
hand-holding of anxious lawmakers that became an integral part of the
NEC job under Summers's mentor, Bob Rubin, is being handled by another economist,
Mark Zandi, a former McCain adviser. Marc points out that Summers does
"ride herd over
the administration's infrastructure renewal program." But I'd wager
that infrastructure renewal is not what Larry Summers pictured for
himself when
he arrived at the White House. The question in my mind is not why
Summers would leave, but why he would stay?

If
Summers's situtation is untenable, two questions arise: Who succeeds him
at NEC? And where does he go next? I, too, heard--but, alas, could not
confirm--the rumor that Rahm Emanuel has put out feelers for a possible
successor. Calling around to administration and Wall Street folks,
though, there seems to be no shortage of candidates. Some names floated
were former Clinton Treasury official Roger Altman, former Clinton chief
of staff Erskine Bowles, and Austan Goolsbee. I'm told that Summers's
deputy, Jason Furman, is an unlikely choice, so toxic is the feeling
toward the current NEC. My own bet to succeed Summers would be Peter
Orszag. The argument against this is that Orszag has more power and a
larger staff at OMB than he would at NEC (he'd have to give up his car
service, too). But I'm not persuaded. Orszag is coming off a big victory with
health care, it'd be a natural time for a move. And beyond the standard
measures of power, the NEC job offers the one thing hyper-ambitious DC
types are helpless to turn down: regular face time with the president.
The fact that the pieces are in place to enable such a move--Treasury
adviser Gene Sperling (Orszag's former boss) is moving over to OMB as
deputy and could easily move up--also seems like an indicator. We'll
see.

I don't know what's next for Summers, and neither did anyone
I
spoke with. Fed chairman is out of the question, and contra the
periodic blogger hyperbole, Geithner seems ever more secure at Treasury.
A university presidency isn't going to happen. So a return to Harvard,
Wall Street consulting and an FT column might be the likeliest option.
(Alternatively, Summers could pull a Janet Reno, stay put forever, and
force me to live down this item.) The natural time to leave would be
after the mid-terms--but if Democrats
get thumped, it might look like Summers got pushed out. The
embarrassing leaks seem designed to bring about an announcement sooner
rather than later, which might, in the end, be the best thing for all
parties because it would inoculate Summers against a mid-term rout.Image credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

About the Author

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.